Tom Toles:

(Nod: Ezra Klein)

Roll Call notes:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) predicted Sunday that she would find the votes to pass a health care overhaul and said Democrats had already made major concessions to Republicans, including ditching the public insurance option.

Yes, Democrats have made significant concessions to Republicans, and I can’t believe the Democrats are still open to negotiating.  The Congressional GOP will not be happy until Democrats have conceded everything in the bill and there’s nothing left—a.k.a. they won’t be happy until the bill is dead.

This was evident from this week’s health-care summit.  How many GOP Congresspeople said Congress should start over with a “blank sheet of paper.”  Rubbish.  This is code for “we want to kill the bill.”  They argue the bill is too long.  Then the president’s plan is too short.  Then C-SPAN cameras should have been in the negotiating rooms.  Then when the cameras are present, it’s all political theater.  Enough already.

Clearly the GOP is uninterested in crafting legislation to help Americans in need—the same Americans they often say they’re fighting for.  I don’t know which Americans they’re fighting for, but certainly not for those in need.

Congressional Democrats are going to be judged in November on what they’ve accomplished.  Now is the time to accomplish something.  But not just anything.  Something that makes a difference.

So if the GOP is uninterested in cooperating, Democrats should move forward on their own—and on their own terms, terms that include the public option.  Time to close this concession stand.  No more give-aways.

Ezra Klein yesterday posted this video of Republican New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg from 2005 talking about budget reconciliation:

Klein goes on:

The idea “that it is outside the rules to proceed within the rules,” Gregg laughs, “is a very unique view on the rules.” He’s right! Sadly, he has now adopted that unique view on the rules, complaining that reconciliation is “running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.”

Obviously, Democrats were similarly hypocritical at the time, arguing that reconciliation was a terrible abuse of power. And so it goes: People start from their preferred outcome and then make up principles that support it. But at all times, the most convincing argument is the one Gregg uses above: Elections generally work on the principle that if you have 51 percent of the vote, you win. That’s how we ratified the Constitution at the Massachusetts Convention. That’s how we elected Scott Brown and Ronald Reagan. That’s how the House of Representatives passes legislation. And it’s how the Senate should work.

I’m still not sure how I feel about jettisoning the filibuster.  When legislation you support is being strangled by one or more senators, you dislike the filibuster; but when legislation you oppose is on the verge of passage, you want every power you can get to stop that legislation.  That said, with cloture votes doubled in this Congress, a supermajority is needed to pass far too many pieces of legislation.  Perhaps the filibuster needs to be vetoed.

(Side note: If the senate actually takes up debate on amending the rules to eliminate the filibuster, will some senator filibuster the filibuster debate?)

The Washington Post “asked former politicians and others to name one idea—other than reforming the much-discussed filibuster—that might get Congress moving.”  Several interesting ideas, including this one from Mack McLarty, Chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, 1993-94:

…abolish the anonymous hold on nominations. Beyond fixing the Senate, this would also strengthen the governance of our country by allowing the president to more expeditiously get his full team in place.

And this one from former Rhode Island Senator Warren Rudman:

To restore the public’s trust and put senators back to work, we need to end their reliance on special-interest money. The best solution I know is citizen-funded elections: a system of small donations from constituents and matching public funds for qualifying candidates who forgo large donations.

(Nod: Ezra Klein)

I’m nearly finished listening to the oral arguments from the U.S. Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  In thinking over the weekend about last week’s ruling and in listening to the arguments, I have these observations:

• I find the ruling an abomination.  The political system is already drowning in corporate money, and this ruling will likely make our democracy progress (digress?) further toward a corporate state.  Furthermore, individuals’ contributions will be further choked by corporate contributions.
• That said, given the plain text of the First Amendment, I can’t see how the ruling could have gone any other way.  Constitutionally, the ruling had to be made.  The amendment says “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.”  If campaign contributions amount to political speech, then corporations should be allowed to contribute as much as they want.  I, of course, don’t agree (as stated above), but the Constitution is the owner’s manual we have to follow.  To me, this was a clear case from the start, and I’m surprised the ban wasn’t struck-down earlier.
• So now that this precedent has been established, can I as an individual petition the court to strike down the limits on individual campaign contributions?  If I have $6 million, why can’t I contribute it to whomever I please?  Why must I be limited to only contributing $2,400?  Based on Citizens United v. FEC, aren’t the individual limits unconstitutional, too?  I can’t see how any limits on political speech can be upheld now.
• Seems to me the only way to really solve this issue is a complete ban on private money in elections—via a constitutional amendment establishing robust public financing.

If the political/news/blog world weren’t so wrapped up in the special election in Massachusetts, we might actually be talking about this.  But we aren’t.

James Fallows at The Atlantic posted this graph and comment yesterday (click for larger version):

Notes Fallows:

The blue line, on the top, is the significant one: it is a gauge of how often bills or nominations were subjected to the need for a “supermajority” vote, rather than a regular Constitutional majority. The goldish line, on the bottom, indicates how often the supermajority prevailed — how often they “broke the filibuster.” As a reminder, there is nothing in the Constitution about this practice. (Supermajorities for certain situations, like impeachment or ratifying treaties or passing Constitutional Amendments, yes; as a general practice, no.)

Easy to see why not much gets done.

In Senate-speak, Senator Franken tells Senator Lieberman to sit down and shut up and pisses-off Senator McCain in the process.

No, Joe, do take it personally.  Perhaps it “harms the comity” as Senator McCain said, but it sure doesn’t harm the comedy.

(Nod: AmericaBlog)

I learned this week from the website OpenCongress a federal lawsuit was filed charging the method used to apportion seats in the U.S. House of Representatives effectively disenfranchises voters in smaller-population states.  OpenCongress cites a New York Times article by Peter Baker.  From the NYT:

In theory, every member of the House represents roughly the same number of people. But because each state gets at least one seat, no matter how small its population, and because the overall size of the House has not changed in a century, the number of people represented by a single congressman can vary widely.

The most populous district in America right now, according to the latest Census data, is Nevada’s 3rd District, where 960,000 people are represented in the House by just one member. All of Montana’s 958,000 people likewise have just one vote in the House. By contrast, 523,000 in Wyoming get the same voting power, as do the 527,000 in one of Rhode Island’s two districts and the 531,000 in the other.

That 400,000-person disparity between top and bottom has generated a federal court challenge that is set to be filed Thursday in Mississippi, charging that the system effectively disenfranchises people in certain states. The lawsuit asks the courts to order the House to fix the problem by increasing its size from 435 seats to at least 932, or perhaps as many as 1,761. That way, the plaintiffs argue, every state can have districts that are close to parity.

Baker cites the historical background of the current House situation:

The issue traces back to the founding of the country. The Constitution stipulated that every 10 years, the House should be reapportioned so that each state had at lease one representative and that no Congressional district contained fewer than 30,000 people. But it was left to Congress to decide how many total House seats there should be.

The original House had 65 representatives, one for every 33,000 people. As the country’s population grew over the next century, so did the size of the House, until it reached 435 in 1911, when each member at that time representing an average of 212,000 people.

But Congress refused to reapportion after the 1920 Census, as a wave of immigration threatened to shift voting power from the South and Midwest to the urban Northeast. Eventually, Congress voted to keep the House at 435 seats regardless of rising population. Except for a brief period when it enlarged to 437 because Alaska and Hawaii had joined the union with one seat each, the House has remained at 435 ever since.

This is certainly an interesting idea.  Imagine your Congressperson having a more intimate knowledge of your district and your needs while being part of a more equitable system.

But the first thing I thought of when I was reading this story was not the future implications on our democracy if the House was expanded to double its current size.  The first thing I thought of was where do you put all these new representatives?  Surely an addition on the House—or, gasp, a new building—would be necessary, no?  Will the House turn into the Galactic Senate from Star Wars?

I was curious where Senator Kennedy ranked on the longest-serving-senator list.  Lucky for me, the U.S. Senate website has a list of the top 25 longest-serving senators (as of 27 August).  He’s #3, but will in October be passed by Senator Inouye of Hawaii.

1. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV): Jan 3, 1959 to present (50 years, 7 months, 25 days)
2. Strom Thurmond (R-SC): Dec 24, 1954 to Apr 4, 1956 and Nov 7, 1956 to Jan 3, 2003 (47 years, 5 months, 17 days)
3. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA): Nov 7, 1962 to Aug 25, 2009 (46 years, 9 months, 19 days)
4. Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI): Jan 3, 1963 to present (46 years, 7 months, 25 days)
5. Carl T. Hayden (D-AZ): Mar 4, 1927 to Jan 3, 1969 (41 years, 9 months, 30 days)

Tom Schaller at FiveThirtyEight.com wrote about the big names that were in the U.S. Senate when Senator Ted Kennedy began his career there:

Last night Ted Kennedy left the Senate for good as its liberal lion. But his point of arrival tells us a lot about him, too, for he was trained by, learned from and found great company among a group of pretty amazing senators in Washington when he arrived as a young cub on the scene almost 47 years ago.

OpenCongress.org is reporting House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) says the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, also known as the “Audit the Fed” bill, will pass the House this fall.

FRANK: “We will subject [the Federal Reserve] to a complete audit. I’ve been working with Ron Paul, who is the main sponsor of that bill. He agrees that we don’t want to have the audit appear as if it is influencing monetary policy because that would be inflationary, and Ron and I agree on that. We also think, one of the things the audit will show you is what the Federal Reserve buys and sells. And that will be made public, but not instantly, because if that was made available instantly you would have a lot of people trading off of that and it would have too much impact on the market. Again, Ron agrees with that. So we will probably have that data released after a time period of several months – enough time so that it wouldn’t be market sensitive. That will be part of the overall federal regulation that we are adopting. The House will pass it probably in October.”

The OpenCongress blog has a terrific post on debunking five lies concerning the health care legislation moving through Congress.  In this all-out war being waged by opponents of health care reform, knowing the facts and fighting lies with truth is imperative.  Here’s one on their list:

Lie #1: The Health Care bill would set up government death panels

This lie has been widely circulated over email and in blog posts, recently and most prominently by Sarah Palin, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and others. Their claim is that language in the bill relating to “advance care planning consultations” would set up mandatory meetings in which government “death panels” would force senior citizens and others to sign some sort of early death pact. In reality, the bill language seeks to require Medicare to cover the cost of counseling sessions with doctors on end-of-life issues if a person chooses to have one. Currently, these kinds of sessions aren’t covered by Medicare, and people without extra money often can’t afford to have them.

Read the actual provision on end-of-life counseling in the official bill text

Here’s an interview with Republican Sen. John Isakson of Georgia, the lawmaker who has been pushing hardest over the years to get this passed. He calls Palin’s comment “nuts” that her “baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s death panel,” and says the provision is about giving people the authority to decide if they want an end-of-life consultation. “It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.”

Unfortunately for those who would benefit from this provision, it has been dropped by the Senate Finance Committee who no doubt caved to the venomous misinformation.

Because of Amendment XVII:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Vacancies are to be filled by special election, but until said election, the governor of the state may, but is not required to by the U.S. Constitution, appoint a temporary Senator if state law says the governor can.  Any vacancies in the House, however, must be filled solely by special elections according to Article I, Section 2—no temporary appointments:

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

The Senate practice of temporary appointments is, according to the Congressional Research Service, a holdover [PDF] from the original election procedure of senators where, prior to the 17th Amendment, state legislatures would choose the senators for their state:

This practice originated with the constitutional provision that applied prior to the popular election of senators, under which governors were directed to make temporary appointments when state legislatures were in recess. It was intended to ensure continuity in a state’s Senate representation during the lengthy intervals between state legislative sessions.

Another aspect of our government and election system dictated by antiquated rules and practices (like voting on a Tuesday; more on that later), but not if Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold has his way.  On Sunday, Feingold announced:

The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people. I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute. As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon.

Given the recent, shall we say, circus with the vacant Senate seat in Illinois and the odd and ill-fated pseudo-campaign of a certain would-be senator for New York, the power to decide the representative of the people should be left to the people.

I found this video from Politico interesting (you probably won’t, but hey, this is my blog!): the new United States Senate is sworn in.  The Senate of the 111th Congress is 98-strong, as we’re still missing senators from Illinois and Minnesota.  Three more, of course, will soon be leaving: Sen. Joe Biden will resign to become the vice president, Sen. Hillary Clinton will resign to become secretary of state, and Sen. Ken Salazar will resign to become secretary of the interior.  I’m not aware of when they will formally resign their seats.  Biden will have to before 20 January, but the other two presumably won’t until they’re confirmed into their new posts (and as far as I know, Sen. Salazar still needs a Saxbe Fix).

If you watch the video, you’ll notice the incumbent and freshman senators are escorted down the Senate aisle by someone.  This other person is the other senator from the same state (except for Illinois, where there currently is only one senator, so Sen. Ted Kennedy escorted Sen. Dick Durbin; and Virginia, where incoming Sen. Mark Warner was escorted by the other senator for Virginia, Sen. Jim Webb, and the retiring senator, Sen. John Warner).

Also, if you watch the video, please let me know who the female is at 9:25 walking with Sen. Kay Hagan and Sen. Richard Burr.  It looks like Sen. Barbara Mikulski, no?  But why would she be walking down the aisle, too?  Maryland didn’t have a Senate election, and no one else in the group was without an escort.

Election 2008 still isn’t over.  At least not for Minnesotans. Incumbent Senator Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Al Franken are battling each other in a recount that doesn’t seem to end.  In question now are absentee ballots that may or may not have been unfairly rejected on election night.  The Coleman campaign, citing the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause, says they shouldn’t be counted until there is a uniform process for counting them.  I absolutely agree.  One county shouldn’t be using a different set of standards to count ballots than another county is using.

Today, we received some more news. From CNN:

Minnesota’s Supreme Court Thursday barred officials from including rejected absentee ballots in the recount of the state’s hotly contested U.S. Senate race unless both of the candidates and elections officials agree the ballot was improperly rejected.

What are the odds both of the candidates agree on which ballot to count and which one not to?  And this question begs another.  How long will this last?  And will there be a victor come 3 January when the new Congress is sworn in?  One possibility in this mess: Article I, Section 5, Paragraph 1 of the U.S. Constitution:

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Emphasis mine.  So the Senate has the power to intervene in the Coleman/Franken race.  Will they?

Oh, and as an aside, a recount is one very strong reason why we shouldn’t popularly elect the president.  A national recount in a close election would be a nightmare.  But this is a discussion topic for a different day.

In regards to the constitutionality of Senator Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state, people on the left, I think, might be quick to dismiss this case as silly and simply politically-driven, and people on the right might be quick to dismiss this case because it would widely be viewed as politically driven if they (other Senators charged with confirming Clinton) challenged her nomination based on the constitutionality of it (not to mention having a past lack of concern with the Bush Administration’s, shall we say, cavalier attitude to certain parts of the Constitution).

For a recap, here’s Article I, Section 6, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office

So, no senator or representative can be appointed to a civil office (e.g. a cabinet position) during their current Congressional term if that office received a pay increase during their term in Congress.  As I wrote last month, the Office of the Secretary of State received a pay raise this year, during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term.  Thus, according to Article I, Section 6, she is ineligible.

Congress, however, has dealt with this problem before in what has been called “the Saxbe Fix.”  President Nixon appointed Ohio Senator William Saxbe to be attorney general, but the office received a pay increase while he was serving his Senate term.  In response, Congress lowered his pay to the level before he began his term.  This again happened in 1993 when President Clinton appointed Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen to be secretary of the treasury.  This past Wednesday, Congress took up the issue again and passed S.J. 46, a joint resolution lowering the salary of the secretary of state to the January 2007 level before Senator Clinton was sworn in to her current Senate term.  Here’s the text of the resolution, now in President Bush’s hands:

• (a) In General- The compensation and other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of State shall be those in effect January 1, 2007, notwithstanding any increase in such compensation or emoluments after that date under any provision of law, or provision which has the force and effect of law, that is enacted or becomes effective during the period beginning at noon of January 3, 2007, and ending at noon of January 3, 2013.
• (b) Civil Action and Appeal-
  • (1) JURISDICTION- Any person aggrieved by an action of the Secretary of State may bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to contest the constitutionality of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary of State on the ground that such appointment and continuance in office is in violation of article I, section 6, clause 2, of the Constitution. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such a civil action, without regard to the sum or value of the matter in controversy.
  • (2) THREE JUDGE PANEL- Any claim challenging the constitutionality of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary of State on the ground that such appointment and continuance in office is in violation of article I, section 6, clause 2, of the Constitution, in an action brought under paragraph (1) shall be heard and determined by a panel of three judges in accordance with section 2284 of title 28, United States Code. It shall be the duty of the district court to advance on the docket and to expedite the disposition of any matter brought under this subsection.
  • (3) APPEAL-
    • (A) DIRECT APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT- An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order upon the validity of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary of State under article I, section 6, clause 2, of the Constitution, entered in any action brought under this subsection. Any such appeal shall be taken by a notice of appeal filed within 20 days after such judgment, decree, or order is entered.
    • (B) JURISDICTION- The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question presented by an appeal taken under subparagraph (A), accept jurisdiction over the appeal, advance the appeal on the docket, and expedite the appeal.
• (c) Effective Date- This joint resolution shall take effect at 12:00 p.m. on January 20, 2009.

To my point about people on the left blowing this situation off, Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central, a branch of left-leaning Talking Points Memo, had this to say last week:

Is Hillary really Constitutionally ineligible to be Obama’s Secretary of State, as some right-wingers are claiming?

Well, as I wrote here and last month, yes, she really is constitutionally ineligible, but I’m hardly a right-winger.  And he called the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section VI) a “frivolous legal technicality.”  So I guess that would make the Constitution is a frivolous legal document as well?

For people on the left, complaining about the current president violating the Constitution while giving the president-elect a pass seems to make the former moot, no?  They’d argue that the former’s violations were detrimental to the rule of law, separation of powers, etc., but that the latter’s violation was okay because nobody got hurt from it and you’re willing to look the other way?

I’m not saying Senator Clinton shouldn’t be secretary of state.  Although I’m no fan of the Clintons, she’s an ambitious, smart person and has strong connections with and a strong rapport amongst world leaders.  But as I wrote last month, I’m fairly certain no one could argue Senator Clinton is receiving this appointment out of some corrupt practice, which the Emoluments Clause was to protect against.  Nor can anyone argue she’s taking this office for the money.  The Saxbe Fix ought to be enough to get her by the Emoluments Clause.

But the Saxbe Fix isn’t enough for the conservative no-fans-of-the-Clintons Judicial Watch.  Manu Raju at Politico reports Judicial Watch

is considering litigation to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming the next Secretary of State, saying Congress’ action Wednesday to clear a legal hurdle for her nomination runs counter to the Constitution.

I’m not sure what standing they would have to base their case on before the appointment and confirmation, but after is a different story.  Eugene Volokh quotes Michael Stokes Paulsen’s 1994 Is Lloyd Bentsen Unconstitutional? article:

A person adversely affected by a Treasury Department regulation promulgated by Secretary Bentsen—say, for example, new Treasury or IRS regulations implementing President Clinton’s tax hikes—would have standing to sue to have such regulations overturned on the ground that the Secretary of the Treasury was illegally appointed.

Likewise, someone could use this argument against a Secretary Clinton.  And I find it interesting that Congress built in a “Civil Action and Appeal” section to the joint resolution.

But before someone could bring a case against her appointment, she has to be appointed, and this week Congress cleared the way for said action.  We’ll see what comes next.  Again, though, this side-stepping of the Constitution is dangerous.  Adhere to the document or take the necessary steps to change it.  There shouldn’t be some dubiously-questionable middle ground like the Saxbe Fix.

This weekend, New Orleans Representative William Jefferson (D) lost a bid for a tenth term in Congress.  About time.  I wrote last month he was one of eleven Congressmen running for election while under investigation.  He’s now the second name to drop off that list, with Uncle Ted Stevens being the first.  Jefferson, of course, was found hiding $90,000 of cash in his freezer.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) list their report of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress.  Here they are:

• Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
• Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
• Rep. John T. Doolittle* (R-CA)
• Rep. Tom Feeney* (R-FL)
• Rep. Vito J. Fossella* (R-NY)
• Rep. William J. Jefferson* (D-LA)
• Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
• Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
• Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL)
• Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
• Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA)
• Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV)
• Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA)
• Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA)
• Rep. Steve Pearce* (R-NM)
• Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY)
• Rep. Rick Renzi* (R-AZ)
• Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
• Sen. Ted Stevens* (R-AK)
• Rep. Don Young (R-AK)

*Doolittle, Fossella, and Renzi retired; Pearce lost a Senate bid; and Feeney, Jefferson, and Stevens were defeated in their reelection bids.

Looks like with these deletions, we’ll be adding some more names to this list (or could it be that these were the only corrupt Congressmembers and there are no more to add to the list? Yeah, right, sadly).  I was going to write we can now add NY Rep. Charlie Rangel to the list, but he’s already on there.

After yesterday’s vote in the House of Representatives on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, there was a heavy, disgusting game of blame being played.  Republican leaders blamed a floor speech by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Democrats countered by (deservedly) mocking them.  And then there was this:

This is why people hate politics.  This is why people don’t care anymore and don’t pay attention.  And this is why people don’t vote.

Fine if lawmakers don’t like legislation.  Argue against it.  Suggest alternatives.  But don’t look for excuses to cover your asses.  Now if (when?) the economy tanks this week without Congress passing legislation to attempt a prevention, Democrats can blame Republicans for not acting sooner.  Ugh.  More blame.  Blaming each other, not getting anything done, and who’s left holding the short straw?  You and me.

After the failed vote, lawmakers as a whole have only themselves to blame.  Ben Pershing at the Washington Post offers several reasons why the vote failed (and why lawmakers as a hole are to blame):

1) Poor Salesmanship. Did you know that the general consensus is now that this bill will not cost $700 billion? If you didn’t, it’s because the bill’s proponents did a poor marketing job. From the start, the Bush administration did not do enough to emphasize the point that taxpayers would get at least some of the money back, and that gigantic price tag got stuck in the head of the public (and the media).

The administration was also too eager and ambitious with its initial proposal, alienating many lawmakers right from the start by seeming to ask for the moon — give us everything we want, with no oversight. This White House has long played political hardball, but this was not the time for hardball. This was the time for begging. The administration also let the “bailout” label stick to the package right from the start. By the time President Bush started calling it a “rescue” measure, it was too late.

3) No Center of Gravity. Who’s running Washington right now? Bush is the lamest of lame ducks, with a minuscule approval rating and no clout or political protection left to offer. Bush and Vice President Cheney were reportedly making calls to wavering Republicans right to the end; obviously that didn’t do the trick. Barack Obama and John McCain both supposedly support the bill, but neither of them has been exactly wholehearted in their backing, and there haven’t been any reports of either candidate calling members of their own party to lobby.

House leaders, meanwhile, did support the bill and did whip it. But this wasn’t a party-loyalty vote; lawmakers were asked to vote yes, but they weren’t threatened. They (probably) weren’t bribed. Add all that up, and you had a power vacuum. [...]

It’s possible despite weeks of warnings, and a stock market that is cratering as we speak, that a lot of members still aren’t taking any of this seriously enough. And that, ultimately, may be the real reason for today’s vote.

Also, Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com says the many lawmakers in swing districts that voted against the bill doomed it:

ALL VULNERABLES = 8 YEAS, 30 NAYS (21%)
OTHERS = 197 YEAS, 198 NAYS (50%)

Members of Congress: instead of pointing fingers at each other, point them at yourselves.  Accept responsibility and do your job.  That’s what we elected you for, that’s what we pay you for, and that’s what we expect from you.

Have Democrats in the U.S. Senate grown some balls? It may be too early to tell, but this looks promising:

the version of the FISA bill that was just reported out of the Judiciary Committee does not—repeat, does not—contain retroactive immunity for the telecom companies.

No doubt the president and many GOP senators will have a cow, but let’s hope this sticks.

In response to this ad:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said this:

As with MoveOn’s slanderous attacks on General David Petraeus, the new ads are so misleading and disgusting they have no place in our nation’s political discourse.I call on all Members of Congress to join me in condemning this pathetic, misleading action by MoveOn.org, regardless of their views on the best way to extend the life of the valuable SCHIP program.

Pathetic and misleading, huh? What about the president’s lies about the legislation? Those aren’t condemnation worthy?

(Nod: The Carpetbagger Report)

…for placing a hold on the Senate Democrats’ plans to cave in to the president and give telecom companies immunity for spying on Americans.

With all the cries of foul play and un-patriotism including a vote in the U.S. Senate to condemn the MoveOn.org Petraeus ad, there’s been very little congressional GOP outcry over two other incidents, one of which involved a sitting U.S. Representative and minority leader in the U.S. House.

First there was the CNN interview with Representative and Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio:

The investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda [in Iraq].

The “small price” to which he was referring, of course, is the over 3,800 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and the over 27,000 wounded in Iraq, not to mention the soldiers who don’t see their families for months, the soldiers who have served multiple tours, the soldiers who don’t have adequate breaks between tours, and the soldiers who miss the births of their children. A small price indeed for those soldiers who make up those numbers and their family and friends who must deal with the consequences.

The second story not receiving any attention comes from Rush Limbaugh, the out-spoken conservative radio host. During a listener call-in, Limbaugh called U.S. soldiers who don’t support the Iraq war “phony soldiers.”

So Senate GOPers, why the hypocrisy? Why not fervent outcries over these two “unpatriotic” gaffes? “Do as I say, not as I do,” right? That certainly also explains why the senators who wanted the debate and vote on the MoveOn.org ad previously complained of wasting time on Democratic “empty resolutions.”

Congress on Sunday rolled-over yet again and gave the president exactly what he wanted, giving the president power to spy on Americans. So much for the Democratic promises to change things and stand up to the president when they took power in Congress. Inexcusable.

The House of Representatives is poised to give themselves a pay raise for the excellent and very hard work they’ve been doing. After the $4,400 increase, their salary will be nearly $170,000.

Nevermind that the median household income, as of 2005, was $46,326; nevermind that 37 million [PDF] Americans live below the poverty level; and nevermind that 46 million Americans have no health insurance coverage.

As always, Congress is looking out for the working men and women in this country. I’m glad they found the time to take care of themselves amidst all their important work fixing the education system, fixing the health care system, saving Social Security and Medicare, finding alternative fuels, securing the borders, curtailing the illegal immigration problem, and solving that pesky Middle East problem. Well done, Congress, well done. You are a shining example for the rest of us.

(Photo: Wikipedia Commons)

Democrats leading up to the 2006 midterm election railed against the Republican “Culture of Corruption” and touted their plan to end the shadowy deals and hidden uses of tax-payer money.

Well, there’s a reason why only 14% of Americans have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in Congress, according to the Gallup Poll. 14%!

Part of the Democrats’ plan they campaigned on was to bring earmarks out into the light. Congresspeople often bring back the bacon for their home districts, securing taxpayer money for pet projects. Anderson Cooper of CNN and his staff called all 435 members of Congress to see if each would disclose the list of earmarks each requested. The results?

• 45 have turned over their requests.
• 68 flat out refused.
• 6 told us they did not request any earmarks.
• But the majority, 316, never responded.

45 out of 435 isn’t exactly shedding light on the pork problem. Oh, and one of the 68 who refused? None other than Speaker Nancy Pelosi. How’s that for campaign promises.